GUARD MEMOS ACCURATE IF NOT ORIGINALS

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
GUARD MEMOS ACCURATE IF NOT ORIGINALS
57
Thu, 09-16-2004 - 7:43am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15_2.html<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


 


Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect


CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service


By Howard Kurtz


<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01


CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."


"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "


Rather spoke after interviewing the secretary to Bush's former squadron commander, who told him that the memos attributed to her late boss are fake -- but that they reflect the commander's belief that Bush was receiving preferential treatment to escape some of his Guard commitments.


The former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, is the latest person to raise questions about the "60 Minutes" story, which Rather and top CBS officials still defend while vowing to investigate mounting questions about whether the 30-year-old documents used in the story were part of a hoax. Their shift in tone yesterday came as GOP critics as well as some media commentators demanded that the story be retracted and suggested that Rather should step down.


"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast. "I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."


For Rather, 72, it is an all-too-familiar role. In his CBS career, he has survived an impertinent exchange with President Richard M. Nixon during Watergate, a clandestine trek through the mountains of Afghanistan, an on-air confrontation with George H.W. Bush over Iran-contra and a much-debated sitdown with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.


Now, on the final leg of a career launched by a Texas hurricane, Rather is trying to weather his biggest storm. And some of his closest friends and associates are concerned.


"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries." Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS.


In her interview with Rather yesterday, Knox repeated her contention that the documents used by "60 Minutes" were bogus. Knox, 86, worked for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian while he supervised Bush's unit in the early 1970s.


"I know that I didn't type them," Knox said of the Killian memos. "However, the information in there is correct," she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what was getting away with."


Rather said he was "relieved and pleased" by Knox's comments that the disputed memos reflected Killian's view of the favorable treatment that Bush received in the military unit. But he said, "I take very seriously her belief that the documents are not authentic." If Knox is right, Rather said, the public "won't hear about it from a spokesman. They'll learn it from me."


But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and not true about the president's military service, they ask me questions: 'How do you know this and that about the documents?' "


CBS News President Andrew Heyward defended the work that went into the Guard story. "I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said last night. "But we want to get to the bottom of these unresolved issues," including questions about the memos' typography, signatures and format. "There's such a ferocious debate about these documents."


Heyward said the account by Knox is "significant, which is why we're putting it on our prime-time program," "60 Minutes."



Donna

Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President. -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Donna

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2004
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 2:42pm


I'm not defending CBS. I simply said I saw the interview with Killian's secretary & I believe her - she has no reason to lie. I believe Bush was a slacker and used family influence to bend the rules. I also felt she was corrrect in her opinion that the other guardsmen resented the fact that Bush asked for and was given a lot of favoritism.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 2:49pm
They're saying the evidence is fake, but the content is true. Is anyone falling for this insane defense?"

A viewer of The O'Reilly Factor wrote in "Try this line of argument with Internal Revenue..."

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2004
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 2:54pm


If you're talking about CBS's defense, that's CBS's problem - but a lot of people, including me, believe the content of their story is true.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 3:03pm
She's a democrat, she has reason to lie. His commanding officer, Stout or something like that, has said the the information in these documents is false, he's also a registered Repulican I believe, so he also has reason to lie. Who do you believe, the one that supports your own personal beliefs, it has nothing to do with facts. There are no facts in this story.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2004
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 3:11pm
The fact is she worked for Killian. She had no reason to fabricate a story, she simply told it the way she remembered it and came across as very believable. It took courage for her to do so - maybe at her age she's able to tell the truth and not worry about the political fall out. As you said we all believe who we want to, but after seeing her on television, it's pretty difficult to see her as someone lying to get ahead.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 3:22pm
I never discounted the fact that she worked for Killan. Why omit that she is also a democrat that plans to vote against Bush? She doesn't have to be lying to "get ahead", people don't only misrepresent fact for personal gain. I didn't see the interview, but I've read and heard plenty of commentary on it. Not everyone that did see it has taken your position, and I can honestly say, that includes some of the more partisan commentators I listen to and includes one that is a self-described social liberal and fiscal conservative that as of late has nothing positive to say about Bush.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 3:42pm
I found her claim rather strange that someone saw original memos and retyped them....why would they do that? Why not just produce the original incriminating ones?

Pages